Communication breakdown

We seem to have started something… yes, it’s another guest post, this time from Doug Daniel, responding to Tom Harris’s response to Pete Wishart’s original post on an all-party campaign for independence.Â Doug Daniel is a senior software developer and (failed) musician from Aberdeen.Â He wants Scotland to be independent, and he very occasionally blogs here, but only when he can be bothered.

I want Scottish independence. I’ve been a supporter of Scottish independence ever since I was old enough to understand that Scotland did not enjoy the same nation status as “normal” countries (in other words, I can’t remember not wanting independence), and I’ve been a member of the SNP since 2007, when the idea of Scottish voters plumping for independence suddenly seemed a realistic prospect.

That doesn’t mean I’m a dyed-in-the-wool SNP voter (I’ve actually voted for four of the five parties currently represented in Holyrood – I’ll let you guess who the odd one out is) and throughout my life I like to think I’ve taken the time to try to understand why there are many people in Scotland who do not think the same way as I do. I understand them, but I don’t agree with them. So why does it feel like the majority of those who favour the union have never afforded the same respect to those who do want independence?

We see politicians from the three unionist parties talking of independence as “the SNP’s separatist agenda” (so what’s the Green and socialist agendas?), as if it was some evil plan concocted by the wicked overlord Alex Salmond and his cabinet henchmen, the aim of which we will not find out until we’ve been duped into voting for it. By then it will be too late, and we’ll suddenly realise that we’ve been strung along the whole time – it was never about creating a better nation after all, it was just about… Well, I have no idea.

Digging a big trench along the border and erecting a big fence to keep everyone out so Scotland remains isolated from the world? Turning Scotland into some sort of despotic dictatorship, putting Irn Bru in the taps, forcing everyone to eat cholestoral* and listen to The Corries on a loop, while using the oil money to make a big, gold statue of Emperor Salmond? Who knows. I suspect those that use such words don’t know either – they just like the negative connotations of the words “separatist” and “agenda” and use them accordingly.

And this is the problem. When unionists are “fighting” against independence, on the most part I don’t believe they actually understand what they’re fighting against. There seems to be a sense that all those who seek independence care about is getting independence, purely for the sake of getting it. Or perhaps that nationalists think that the second Scotland votes for it, the pavements will be paved with gold, we’ll all be millionaires, and all our social ills will magically disappear. They don’t seem to have considered the possibility that people perhaps view independence as a method for making Scotland better, rather than being the secret ingredient itself.

I’m not sure why this is. Obviously, it’s easy to be against something if you’ve made no effort to understand it, in fact this ignorance is almost as much a part of human nature as resistance to change.

The greatest album ever recorded (this is a scientific fact) has a song titled “Ifwhiteamericatoldthetruthforonedayit’sworldwouldfallapart”, and similarly I do wonder if some unionists subconsciously feel that doubts might start to creep in if they so much as acknowledged that independence might not be the absurd notion they purport it to be. Others have perhaps just listened to the media hype for so long that they feel there is no need to look at the pros and cons of both sides for themselves, assuming that it has already been demonstrated, without a shadow of a doubt, that the (supposed) benefits of the union outweigh any minor improvements independence might bring. I dare say there are some in the political class that quite simply view independence as a threat to career progression.

One excuse I’ve noticed being used increasingly is that unionists don’t view the constitutional question as being very important, implying that they don’t see the need to waste time thinking about it. Those who say this would do well to reassess the situation, because like it or not, there is going to be a referendum in this parliamentary session, so they might need to start thinking about it pretty soon. Besides, one thing the polls constantly show us is that less and less Scots are happy with the status quo, so the constitutional question would need to be answered, even if there was no referendum on the horizon.

I want the forthcoming debate on the constitution to be well argued on both sides. I don’t want people to vote for independence just because of a dearth of reasoned arguments on the other side, just as I don’t want people to stick with the union purely because all they hear are completely unfounded horror stories about what independence will do to Scotland.

I want the outcome of the referendum to be the result of both (or all three?) sides arguing their cases succinctly, and the public deciding which option sounds like the best way forward for the country. I don’t see that happening while many (most?) of a unionist persuasion refuse to try to understand why so many people want independence, other than perhaps pithily putting it down to watching Braveheart a few too many times and making references to shortbread tins. If you don’t make an effort to understand your opposition, how can you properly address their points?

So my question to these supporters of the union is this: why do you persistantly fail to understand why many people in Scotland want independence?

157 Comments (and one trackback)

“I want the outcome of the referendum to be the result of both (or all three?) sides arguing their cases succinctly, and the public deciding which option sounds like the best way forward for the country.”

Exactly!
Wendy Alexander had her “bring it on” moment when she wanted a referendum there and then, without any debate and therefore without people knowing what they were actually voting for.
The Scottish Government had the National Conversation, all sides were invited and that could have been the constitutional debate that we need but the unionist parties all refused to participate.
Then when the SNP won an outright majority this year, the unionist parties all started saying they wanted a referendum and they wanted it now, they even threatened to call one themselves. Again, they wanted a snap poll before there was any debate and therefore before people were suitably informed of all the arguments and what they were actually voting for.

A proper debate needs to take place, people need to know the details and understand the issues. Then and only then, when people are in a position to make an informed decision, should there be a referendum.

Ruth Davidson said in her post yesterday:

“I want to move the debate on. That is why once the Scotland Bill becomes law I think we need to stop discussing political process and start talking about real issues. ”

This seems to be the party line for the unionist parties. The independence referendum will arguably be the most important thing to happen in Scottish politics since the start of the union, saying it’s not important or not a real issue is an insult to the people of Scotland.

Yes. It’s all very well for certain unionists to demand that the referendum they never wanted a few months ago needs to be held NOW, knowing full well that if it is held before the public has had a chance to hear the full debate then they are not going to vote for any substantive changes. But if that happens, the question doesn’t go away. If anything, it becomes louder. “We wuz robbed” will be the cry, just like after the 1979 referendum, and we’ll be quite correct.

On the other hand, if the debate is given time to be heard before having the referendum, and the public still vote against independence, then where does that leave the independence movement? We can’t claim people weren’t given enough info or that it was rushed. So we would have to just accept the decision.

The debate will be heard, and it really is in the best interests of all sides that it is given the time it needs to be heard properly. Besides, if the case for the union is so strong, then why do they need to try to scupper the referendum? Say your piece, and if it’s as compelling as it is claimed, then the public will vote for it.

Thanks for your article which mirrors my own childhood experience around 8 or 9 when I first realised with disappointment that the Scotland had lost its independence hundreds of years before.

“I dare say there are some in the political class that quite simply view independence as a threat to career progression.”

When I watched Jim Murphy performing at the Labour Party Conference yesterday using the delivery style that helped Cameron to win the Tory leadership, it confirmed by belief that his personal ambitions outweigh his desire to serve the people of Scotland.

Not so long ago I tried to post a simple unvarnished question on “Labour Hame” asking why Murphy was not prepared to run for the leadership of the Labour Party in Scotland-few will be surprised to know that my straightforward question was not published.

Yes, there are people who put their personal careeer ambitions before the interests of the people of Scotland-many of them sit on the Labour benches at Westminster.

Do I lose them if I admit I regularly see them at least twice on any tour they do, including the time I saw them in Glasgow one night and then went down to London to see them the next two nights, even though they played the exact same set each night?

Excellent article. I’m an SNP member and want independence not for reasons of romantic hogwash but to improve Scotland for everyone who lives here. Is that sentiment really completely at odds with the beliefs of Labour Party members? If it is then they need to take a good long look at why they are involved in politics. The parties aren’t football teams who set out to beat the other colour for the sake of winning; they are there to serve the people who vote them in.

No, the only thing that divides many Labour members from SNP members is the question of independence – SNP members often seem to present it as something which will, in one bound, solve all of Scotlands problem.

Labour members don’t understand how this is at all related, and how repatriating more powers from Westminster to Holyrood is best done through a complicated, divisive and unclear independence process rather than through the established, successful devolution process which neatly side steps the trickier questions that independence poses regarding defence, currency etc.

It’s not that we’re evil, or hate people or try to “keep people poor so they’ll vote for us” because of our “crocodile tears” so we can get a cushy seat in the Lords. I just genuinely don’t see how question of Scotlands place within the UK or outside is relevant. Domestic powers for Holyrood are clearly relevant, defence and foreign policy? Not so much…

The Scotland Bill could be clearer, but it’s definitely less complicated than negotiating independence, especially if that involves changing things like the Bank of England so Scotland has some direct say over it.

I was just having a little poke there, but yes, fair enough, negotiating independence is more complex. I think that’s a lazy argument against it though. It isn’t so complex as to be impossible, it happens all the time these days. What matters is how well the various end results work, not how difficult they are to implement.

But why do we need to share any of those? What makes Scotland unique to the world that it wouldn’t be able to have its own defence policy or foreign policy? As for monetary policy, we would likely keep the sterling, at least until we decided otherwise. Using that as an argument pre-judges the outcome of a referendum that hasn’t even been proposed yet.

Lots of nations are not co-terminus with a nation state, and lots of nations pool their defence and foreign policies. Itâ€™s not unique.

And presumably these countries are locked into political unions similar to the UK? If not, then you’ve pretty much proven the point that we don’t need to remain in the UK in order to share things with the rest of Britain.

They are political unions, yeah â€“ look at Canada or Germany for instance, both are nation-states comprised of multiple nations.

No Aidan, Canada and Germany are federal states, so unless you’re now arguing that the UK is a federal state then you’ve failed to provide an example similar to the UK. They’re not separate countries held together by a Treaty of Union like we are. But then it’s interesting you use Canada, because many in Quebec don’t seem to be too happy about their arrangement anyway, so anyone thinking federalism is the answer for Scotland (hello Lib Dems) is wrong.

Anyway, the point is I asked why SCOTLAND needs to share the things you mentioned. I didn’t ask if there were other examples of countries sharing these things with other countries.

Are you claiming federalism isn’t a form of political union? You asked me for examples, I provided them.

Also, it’s worth noting that Quebec has had 2 referendums on independence in the last 25 years both of which were decided in favour of staying part of Canada.

You asserted that Scotland would be unique in the world as a nation sharing defence and foreign policy, which is incorrect, and then asked for examples where that happened in the context of a political union, so I gave some.

I never said we needed to share defence and foreign policy (which cleverly implies I’m doing Scotland down and saying we’re incapabale, well done for sneaking that insinuation in there, dead classy) but I do think we’re better off if we do.

Just as you think we’re better off sharing monetary policy with England after independence.

Are you claiming federalism isnâ€™t a form of political union? You asked me for examples, I provided them.
Also, itâ€™s worth noting that Quebec has had 2 referendums on independence in the last 25 years both of which were decided in favour of staying part of Canada.
You asserted that Scotland would be unique in the world as a nation sharing defence and foreign policy, which is incorrect, and then asked for examples where that happened in the context of a political union, so I gave some.
I never said we needed to share defence and foreign policy (which cleverly implies Iâ€™m doing Scotland down and saying weâ€™re incapabale, well done for sneaking that insinuation in there, dead classy) but I do think weâ€™re better off if we do.
Just as you think weâ€™re better off sharing monetary policy with England after independence.

No, I asked for examples that were similar to the UK, i.e. distinct countries joined together by treaty of union, not a federal constitution. The UK is not a federal state, whereas Canada and Germany are. Also, I didn’t assert Scotland would be unique in sharing these things, I asked you why you thought Scotland would be unique in needing to do it.

This is farcical. My point was you seem to be in favour of devolution up to a point, and I’m trying to determine where that line is, and why it is that you feel we need to stop there, rather than making that last little jump to full independence. As I said, “why stop there?” What is it about the union that you can’t bear to see Scotland let go of?

Because it was brought up as an example of a key lever independence would bring. My point is that it could be devolved without the associated cost and hassle of full independence. Although, to be fair, the last time I heard anything like a vision for what independence actually meant it didn’t involve control over benefits.

Essentially you’re saying I should give up on Devo Max / FFA / Home Rule because it’s an impossible dream? I’ve heard that line of argument somewhere before…

none of the unionist parties are suggesting devolution of welfare. generally i agree with that.

but there isnt a water tight case that says you cant have devolution of welfare. If you think scotland should control welfare locally than campaign for that AS WELL as independence if thats your thing.

Iain, every single minutiae of goverment could, potentially, be devolved. Should I campaign for each and every one of them? Is that what you propose?

Or should I simply do the sensible thing and lump them into one big package and campaign for that instead? We could even give this big package a name. How about the “independence package”? Has a certain ring to, now, doesn’t it?

Aidan, no one is saying give up on Devo Max or Home Rule or whatever you want to call it. But every time someone makes the assertion that such an such a power could benefit the people of Scotland, you claim that we could just have that power devolved, no need to leave the Union.

After all, all we would need to do is convince one of the big Unionist parties that it’s a good idea, get a commission set up to explore it, run it through Westminster, Holyrood, back to Westminster, over to the Lords, back to Westminster, on to Holyrood and then back to Westminster for finalising before legislation is implemented.

Of course, if we need to go through this rigmarole every time we want to decide for ourselves how our country is run, does there not come a point where you have to say, enough is enough, it’s only a stone’s throw away from independence so let’s cut out the middle man and just go for it?

Ignoring the impact of these wars and nuclear weapons on the international political landscape for a moment, you dont think the Scottish balance sheet would be substantially improved by dropping or altering these policies dramatically? The financial cost of these policies are measured in billions that could otherwise be channelled to other, more “relevant” policies.

And for balance, these policies do have an impact on the lives of the people who are employed in the armed services or defence industry. Scrapping our nuclear deterrent or radically altering our foreign policy will have some sort of impact on employment figures if no alternative was found.

Whatever future for these policies, they have significant implications for the man on the street.

Hm, that doesn’t hold a lot of water for me, I’m afraid. My day to day life hasn’t been much affected by rendition flights or selling out dissidents to Gaddafi. Being a heterosexual male, I’m not directly affected by homophobic discrimination, and as a Christian I’ve never had to put up with Islamophobic abuse. Still, I am 100% sure that this country (Scotland or Britain) would be a better place for dealing with these things, and I’d be prouder of my nation if it gave me fewer reasons to be ashamed. That goes for illegal wars and weapons of mass destruction as well.

Was it Harold Wilson who said the Labour Party was either a moral crusade or nothing at all?

I think rather a lot of people would prefer that their taxes had not paid for the invasion of Iraq or renewing & hosting Trident. It may not be something that affects daily life, but it may be something which people will think about before they vote.

That is of course true – but it rather ties into the arguments about an indepednent Scotland no longer being part of a big important country any more. A lot of people think would that be such a bad thing? If the price of being big and important is having nuclear weapons and having to jump in to whatever wars America decides to fight maybe it’s not such a great deal.

i just dont see that an independent scotland would have been in afghan….hell ever the french were in there at the start. and its not being in britain that gets us involved in ‘american wars’. the UK didnt send thousands of troops to vietnam….even though the US wanted us to.

The most recent campaign, libya, was kicked off due to anglo-french diplomatic action, the americans were so far back on the curve they were almost irrelevant.

also on the iraq as the most horrible thing ever. i dont think most scots really believe that. mostly since most scots still voted labour even after that. except of course for the one parliament we have that doesnt have any say in foreign policy.

It depends really, and I’m being quite genuine here, whether you’ve formed the opinion that, in the round, the union is a good thing or a bad thing. You might think of the union as ‘the baby’ but to others the union is very much ‘the bath water’.

“Throwing the UK out for no good reason…” – again, you may think that throwing out something great is daft, especially if you do it for no reason, anyone would! Here’s where this post is really hitting the nail on the head. You don’t get how we think. For us (supporters of independence) the union is (on balance) a bad thing – that is, in and of itself, a good reason to throw it out. Surely you must be able to understand that – even if you don’t agree?

The Union isn’t a coherent whole though – it’s both baby and bath water. Devolution allows us to selectively drain off the bath water and locate more power at Holyrood (and, hopefully, from there to councils).

Yes, that’s an entirely valid argument, but it isn’t the entire argument. Further devolution lets us discard some of the bathwater – but some we have to keep for ever. It also alows us to keep some of the baby, but not all of it.

I think it is fair to say that before too long we are going to end up with either a union under which there is maximal devolution – or independence with a great deal of cooperation. To be honest, there’s not a lot of difference between the two.

I think we’ve probably taken that metaphor as far as we can, and possibly quite a bit further than is really rational.

I do agree there seems to be little difference between the logical progression of devolution and what seems to be the likely end stage of independence negotiations given recent SNP pronouncements and general trends with the EU.

And that’s the real key for me – devolution is a gradual, evolutionary process which enables us to proceed at a pace which allows for consideration, reflection and adjustment of things that are working those that aren’t.

Independence is a big bang approach with a significant level of dislocation and uncertainty which is going to dominate politics to such an extent for such a long time that it will inevitably take time and attention from bread and butter issues.

Worse, because it will be negotiated in a febrile haze of heat and light, we’ll inevitably get it wrong. Too much will be left at Westminster with too little Scottish influence and no means of further redress. That’s the real danger.

You’re definitely right about the metaphor, and probably right in everything else you say.

Devolution can be a process that can have either devo-max or independence as its end point. It would be nice if the unionist parties would trust the people enough to offer them devo-max, since that’s clearly the only position with a solid majority supporting it, but there’s little evidence of that happening right now.

We have a common aim here. I’d be happy with devo-max as a next step, you appear to be happy with it as a destination. We should work together and make it happen – thereafter we can get back to arguing about whether full independence is desirable or not.

If a party won an election on the basis of campaigning for those powers they would have little choice.

The problem the SNP are having levering more into the Scotland Bill is down to tactical decisions they made – not participating in the drafting process, not really campaigning on further devolution or even independence except to put it behind a referendum.

There’s that “clearly” word that seems to be a favourite amongst unionists. That was exactly what I was referring to when I said:

“Others have perhaps just listened to the media hype for so long that they feel there is no need to look at the pros and cons of both sides for themselves, assuming that it has already been demonstrated, without a shadow of a doubt, that the (supposed) benefits of the union outweigh any minor improvements independence might bring.”

Where is the evidence that proves this is “clearly” going to be harmful? Stating it over and over again doesn’t make it true.

I just don’t understand the complete and utter lack of ambition if Scotland were to not become independent purely because we’ll have to sort a few things out.

Look how long it’s taking to get a few measly powers devolved. First we have a substandard commission, then we have an even more substandard bill, which has to be debated in Holyrood, then the Commons, then Lords, then back to Holyrood, then probably back to Westminster… Every time we want some more devolution, we’re going to have to go through this nonsense, and every time what we’re given will fall well short of what we want and need.

Why not avoid all that and just do it in one fell swoop? It’ll take less time than it’s taking to debate this rubbish Scotland Bill, and the resulting benefits will be far greater.

We’re not going to get kicked out of the EU – it makes no sense for the EU to lose Scotland, especially as there’s no guarantee we would want to come back. The EU would be weaker without Scotland than with it, and they know that fine.

As for the other stuff, again, I think it just sounds like lack of ambition. You seriously think we should avoid independence on the off-chance that whoever negotiates these things from the Scottish side somehow manages to monumentally cock it all up, leaving us with no assets and all the debt, or something like that? It sounds more like looking for excuses than a robust argument to avoid going down this path.

The detail of those things would be complex for laymen, but there are people who’s sole job is to turn that sort of legalese mumbo-jumbo into little more than admin work.

We’re not going to be barred from entering the EU, but it’s not clear what those terms of entry would be – the Euro and Schengen are part of the terms of accession that all new entrants must accept and it’s far from clear that we’d be able to negotiate opt outs from it.

I’m not saying we’d cock them up, but you can’t just hand wave them away and say they’d all be fine, don’t worry about it laddie.

Not only that but with the ridiculous Scotland Bill we’ll have to enter protracted, and probably contentious, negotiations every single year to determine the level of Block Grant. How does that make things simple?

The union is relevant when the majority view of Scotland is continually overwhelmed by a UK position. The war in Iraq, the poll tax and weapons of mass destruction sited on the Clyde are just three issues that spring to mind.

How can the constitutional question have no relevance? How can the collection of taxes, the funding of social policy, the representation of the people, the reach of foreign policy, the future of Trident, the welfare state, the NHS, education, etc, etc, etc have no relevance to the well-being of any population? By a similar extension, does the existence of a Scottish Parliament at all (or to take it further, a UK parliament within a European context) have much relevance to the lives of people on this island?

Of course it does. It is absolutely fundamental, and the framework upon which all policy is built.

The constitution being of relevance is a completely different question to asking why Scotland cannot succeed within the United Kingdom, which is the point you intended to make (and a perfectly fair one at that).

To suggest that Independence is pretty irrelevant when defining the fortunes of the Scottish (and British) people is completely ridiculous. Quite rightly, there is no such frivolent dismissal when the extent of the EU constitution is debated(*) in the UK, and I dont see why the constitution within the UK should not be taken as seriously.

(*) Actually, in fairness, to call it a debate would be very generous, but it is taken very seriously all the same – its relevance is not doubted.]

Don’t get me wrong – where powers are located and where that derives legitimacy from is important. Education and the NHS are already devolved, further devolving tax and benefits is, I think, clearly something that needs to be done.

But the position of Scotland as a wholly separate nation from the UK? Why? What does that offer that further devolution within the UK doesn’t?

For more than half my life the Tories have been in power at Westminster, not once during that time have they won an election in Scotland but they still decide our foreign policy and defence policy etc.
Could further devolution of powers solve this? Quite possibly but how much power would they be willing to concede? At the moment they seem to be opposing the Scottish Governments calls for more devolution of powers and that’s with an SNP majority and an impending referendum on the cards.
Lets suppose in the referendum people vote in favour of the union, what exactly do you think our chances will be of getting more devolution of powers then? The UK Government will call that a ringing endorsement of the union and more than likely use it as an excuse to take powers away from Holyrood and back to Westminster.

It’s a shame that none of the parties are campaigning for FFA/devo-max as I think it may well prove to be the most popular option with the people.

The failure of the ’79 referendum was used by the Thatcher Government as carte blanche to do as they pleased with Scotland since they said Scotland had chosen to have Westminster make all the decisions.
I have a genuine fear that the same type of thing could happen again if people don’t vote for independence in this referendum.
…which actually brings me to why I favour independence. It’s not healthy to live in fear because the government elected by our neighbours wields so much power over you, it’s really not a great state of affairs at all.

That probably rather depends on if they see the constitution as the be all and end all of Scottish politics.
I suspect most donâ€™t, and if Scottish Labour has other things to offer they may well vote for them regardless of our constitutional position.

And so continues Labour in Scotland’s inability to understand what happened these past two Scottish elections…

My arse it does. If the SNP had fought two elections in a row based on putting the constitution front and center perhaps. They hadn’t, it was domestic policies, bread and butter stuff like prescriptions and tuition fees.

I’m interested about this FFA/Devo Max concept that one of the Unionist parties might oscillate towards. It is yet to be defined, of course.

If we have this (as yet undefined) option in the referendum and Scotland votes yes to it, we’d be unilaterally bending the UK Constitution to benefit Scotland, without the consent of our neighbours. (And if is is meaningful devolution or FFA, then it is on a completely different level compared to the pre-legislative referendum held by Labour in 1997).

That brings up two amusing and contradictory problems. The first is, in reality, there is nothing stopping Scotland from voting for more powers. They are for Scotland to take and not in the gift of anyone else to give. But the Second point is that we’d be skewing the Constitution of this so-called Union towards Scotland – ripping it up and without consulting the other parties to this relationship. Surely, on something as important as this they should be consulted and, perhaps, have their say? But then again, why should they when Scotland should be able to have the powers it desires?

How exactly do we square that circle? Give the other parties in the Union a vote on it? From a Scottish point of view, that would be outrageous. But from an English/Welsh and NI point of view it would be equally outrageous to be excluded from the decision process.

Don’t get me wrong, as an independence supporter, I’m all for this as I believe in the “Can of worms theory”. My own feeling is that if we opened up such a position, it would eventually end with Scottish independence. Quite sharpish.

Aidan, can you point to one example where Scotland’s interests lay one way, the rest of the UK’s laid another and the Westminster government decided, no, Scotland’s right, and plumped for Scotland’s way? Just one example?

If you can’t, how can you claim Scotland has any influence at G8, or anywhere else for that matter?

TBH I’m struggling to avoid thinking of one area where Scotlands interests and the UKs interests diverged like that. The closest I can think of is in allowing accession EU countries freedom of movement to come here, though I don’t think the calculus involved was quite as clear cut as you put it.

Well no, because Scottish political trends are so vastly out of step with the US that it would be a nonsense. We may be more solidly social democratic than England, but we’re at least playing the same game – even the Tories are to the left of the Democrats on a lot of issues.

Erm we are talking about foreign policy Aidan. You aregue that we benefit from being part of the UK and the influence that the UK has. In what sense is the UK’s foreign policy and influence radically different to the USA’s?

the rUK would still be one of the 8 largest economies so would still be a G8 member and would still have had nukes in the 1960s which, AFAICT, is the qualifying criteria for being a permanent member of the security council

So why are Israel, India, Pakistan and N Korea (amongst others) not permanent members? And do you really believe rUK could afford to maintain Trident? And where would they base Trident given that Scotland no longer wants to host it right next to our major population centre?

One of the reasons why unionists don’t seem to know what they are fighting against is a similar reason as to why the SNP often appear so coy as to what independence will mean. There would be very little change to what happens now.

I actually disagree with Colin’s comment above. Yes, collecting tax, giving out social welfare, representing the people and foreign policy are all fundamental for any society but whether those decisions are taken within an independent Scotland or within the UK are, for me, neither here nor there. We’re all going to go out to work, teach our kids, heal the sick and get knocked out of World Cups early, wherever our borders are.

Sure, we have the Tories at London and most Scots disagree with the approach they are taking but the arguably quicker than necessary cutting is hardly earth-shatteringly devastating for our nation, nor was Iraq and nor is Trident, as much as I disagreed with, and continue to disagree with, both decisions.

I flirt with independence simply because I think it’d be fun for Scotland to have a go at being a country itself, it’d be an adventure, a lark, and goodness knows some of the greetin’ face people you pass on the trains and streets could do with a little bit of power in their elbow.

But if a majority are happy with the status quo, because really independence wouldn’t change much and it’s noth worth the ballyhoo, then who can blame them really.

You have hit the nail on the head when you say that for most people there would be very little change to what happens now.

What would change, primarily, is that decisions would no longer be taken in London but in Edinburgh. We would pare things down. Instead of the very complex arrangements which exist at present we would simply have a Scottish Parliament & Government elected by the Scottish people, within the wider framework of the EU – free to cooperate with the rest of the UK when our interests councide but equally free to pursue our own interests in a single minded way when they do not.

What difference will this make to the man/woman in the street? Not a huge amount on a day to day basis. What difference would it make to the governance of the country? Quite a substantial one, over time.

And the most powerful argument for me is not whether independence would put the SNP or Labour into power or what each party might do with that power, it’s that it would put the Scottish people in power and in control of their own destiny. I think this is what the referendum campaign will focus on, or should anyway.

I’ve had similar feelings about what the very worst case scenario for Scotland would be, even if independence did go badly wrong. One of the things I think needs to be kicked into touch is the idea that independence is going to lead to catastrophe for Scotland. It won’t. We’re an affluent, highly developed democratic country with good natural resources and established industries, with a good standard of living. The scaremongering would make you think that independence will lead to economic ruin and leave the country in tatters. Without wanting to sound complacent, that’s just not going to happen, and it’s quite ridiculous that people try to imply this.

Providing the ‘de-unionising’ process is smooth and sensible, I agree. We would lose some money on economies of scale, gain some money in cutting out some layers of government, gain some money in natural resources, etc.. So overall, sounds pretty good.

What would put us at a disadvantage compared to other countries our size is the competitiveness of our industries, the dearth of entrepreneurs, and of course linked to this, the relative size of our public sector. If we are to become independent or Devo Max any time soon and want to maintain our current standard of living, we must address these issues.

Of course, this is not like buying a new car, where we sum up the pros and cons before making our selection. No, this is more like having a baby: much more personal, kind of inevitable, we might have to do some penny pinching at the start, some nurturing & learning, but in the end it’ll be wholly worthwhile!

Kind of a strange analogy I know, but sometimes in life you have to take a calculated leap of faith!

Jeff if you had children who had just left school then you would not be so cavalier about all this. The rate of youth unemployment has sky rocketed. I blame the Tories for that because they view unemployment as a price worth paying. Think about losing your job or not being able to find a job. I would say that’s pretty devastating.

As for Iraq, I think you will find that it was pretty devastating for the people who lived there. It was also pretty devastating for all the people killed in London when buses & tube trains were blown up as a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq.

“The constitution being of relevance is a completely different question to asking why Scotland cannot succeed within the United Kingdom, which is the point I think you intended to make (and a perfectly fair one at that).”

But the position of Scotland as a wholly separate nation from the UK? Why? What does that offer that further devolution within the UK doesnâ€™t?

Well, thats why the debate is relevant isnt it? A lot of people argue that “further devolving tax” is a fudge and doesnt go anywhere near far enough – indeed, the Scotland Bill is seriously flawed and theres a good suggestion that FFA is required in order to ensure that Scotland can be at its most competitive. Theres also a very good chance that Scotland, should she have had the power, would have taken a very different approach to foreign policy. Likewise on Trident. In a lot of areas, probably most, Scotland is choosing a different path to the rest of the UK.

When you start to assess policy areas like this, it is not a huge leap to suggest that Scotland has different aspirations and a different political personality to the UK. [Note that I said "different" and not "better". ;)] And as such, the question that actually needs to be asked is “what does the UK offer Scotland that it could not have with Independence?”

A footnote: this is not just about Scotland incidentally. Do I believe that England would benefit from a cooperative, but competitive, Scotland? Absolutely. A successful, independent Scotland would ensure the northern half of England benefits from significant and long overdue investment from any future Westminster government. How can any of this be bad for all of the British Isles?

A genuine question, why do we want to be at the big table ? Can someone please explain to me who it is we want to influence ? As a country of 5/6 million, we can trade ,emigrate ,be an ally of but why do we need to be a big player in the G8.
I am aware we have that mass weapon of destruction sitting along the road and therefore could not see Scotland not having allies (hopefully until it was removed ) but I do not understand this need to be an ‘influence ‘ on the world. Inventions yes,fairness yes but what influence ?

I don’t understand that either. It seems to be a popular unionist argument – that Scotland would be a smaller country without being in the union. Well yes we would be, that is merely stating the obvious. So what?

A wee voice is better than a wee voice being drowned out by a bigger voice which is where we are now.

“So my question to these supporters of the union is this: why do you persistently fail to understand why many people in Scotland want independence?”

Or if the boot is on the other foot, can anyone here give me one convincing argument as to why Scotland should be independent? I admit guilt for persistently failing to understand why the people of Scotland want independence, and it is mainly for the reason that I have so far failed to hear a good, clear, substantiated argument to prove that Scotland would be better off for it.

People in Scotland who want independence want it for the same reasons that most other countries in the world want to be independent. There is no mystery about it. Presumably you can understand why people in Finland, Australia or Portugal want to be independent, it’s no different for us.

Or do you genuinely not understand why people in ANY country, as opposed to just Scotland, should want to manage their own economy and run their own affairs?

If so, that would be a tough one to explain. You see independence is the normal state for nation-states in the modern world and if you don’t understand why that is the case, you will find it hard going to make sense of the world.

Yes but this is not a coherent argument, just by saying that ‘because others have it, we should’ doesn’t really make sense. Scotland’s case is unique because the UK is unique; it is a political union which has existed for over 300 years and is unparalleled in world history. And besides, Scotland in may ways has the best of both worlds; she has representation on many levels in two parliaments (three including the european one), the economic advantages of being part of a large state (as seen in the continued bank bailouts) whilst maintaining her identity. Scotland doesn’t need a on-size-fits-all case for independent, it is a unique case by the fact that it has been in political and economic union for 300 years and so we must tread carefully when talking about her future.

The supporters of independence always seem to look for the most optimistic result from any independence settlement; this is in may ways admirable, but it does make a unionist argument appear to be negative, which isn’t always the case (it is often more realistic). The economic example is a good one; it is not that unionists have some kind of conspiracy to portray Scotland in a deliberately negative light (as being ‘too wee, too poor’) it is just that in my humble opinion, the nationalist argument is based around over-optimistic assertions and economic arguments which are clouded by a nationalist perspective.

I don’t want anyone to take this the wrong way, but I think the problem with this debate is that nationalist sentiment is a fundamentally irrational impulse, which doesn’t make it illegitimate as a cause, but it makes the debate less rational and illogical because nationalism clouds judgment on various arguments. I mean this as no dis-respect to anyone; nationalism is in may ways a natural impulse, but looking at these comments, many seem to be based around a general anti-union sentiment which appears to distort people’s opinions on the economic and political argument.

How is that putting the boot on the other foot? Putting the boot in the other boot would be “why do nationalists fail to understand why many people in Scotland want to remain in the union?”

You’re a regular reader of this blog. Many contributors have put forward arguments for independence, repeatedly. Pretty much every single article descends into an argument about independence, so the same arguments are put forward every day – more control over our economy; getting control over our numerous natural assets; being able to withdraw from the UK’s awful foreign policy,and not having to harbour weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde.

That’s just a few of the many arguments people regularly put forward for independence, and unlike the unsubstantiated arguments unionists put forward (“oh it would obviously be harmful for Scotland”, “oh we wouldn’t have as much say on the world stage”, “oh it would cost soooooo much money and be soooooo disruptive”), these arguments are all pretty straight-forward and easy to prove.

If you have not managed to pick up on any of these arguments, then I’m afraid you appear to be a classic case of the unionists I am talking about. The arguments are there – why don’t you at least understand them, even if you don’t agree with them?

Yes but Scotland doesn’t need to be independent for any of these things to actually happen.
Yes it would be potentially advantageous for any part of the UK to have control of its taxation and borrowing powers, but this divestation of revenue generating powers is equally potentially dangerous. In Spain for example some regions have revenue generating powers, and whilst the Spanish economy is in dire straits, they are trying to increase their capital expenditure and therefore increasing the Spanish sovereign debt. This is working to lower Spain’s competitiveness and their credit-rating is being affected as a result. Also there’s the more general point of how getting more control of Scotland’s finances would probably equate to having to deal with her share of the UK’s national debt.
Then there’s the talk of the subsidy. Obviously there is huge debate on the figures, both sides claim they are skewed by the other, but the ones I could find claimed that Public spending in England is Â£7,535 per head and in Scotland it is Â£9,179 per head. Now this is not necessarily a problem. It is only natural for the richer parts of the country (mostly the south of england and london, but again debate on the figures) subsidise the poorer areas. If you stripped a country by cutting the poorer areas aside soon nothing would be left. Parts of Scotland are among the UK’s poorest and do well out of the union as a certain portion of the country’s income is redistributed to these areas.

As for the ‘numerous natural assets’, I presume you mean hydrocarbons. The decline of north sea oil is well documented. Production peaked in the mid eighties, then declined following an oil price crash in 1986 (coupled with piper alpha in ’88). Increased investment in the mid 1990′s led to a second peak, in 1999. Since then, even with price increases, production has fallen dramatically (from 2559 million barrels in 1999 to 1452 million barrels in 2007). Yes it is possible that more may yet be found, especially in the fields west of Shetland, but these will almost certainly be smaller and less economic than the major fields currently being extracted. Since the price of oil is so volatile, the resource is being depleted and given the talk of ‘peak oil’ is rapidly falling from fashion, it makes little sense to use that as the biggest economic argument for a country’s independence.

I agree with you on the UK’s foreign policy, it has had many faults. But surely its better than having a foreign policy which doesn’t have any impact on the world stage? Scotland would just be another small european nation of c.5 million people. And as I have pointed out in the past, looking at just the wars in iraq and afghanistan is a very one-dimensional view. The UK government spends Â£billions on aid for countries overseas, has helped the Libyans rid themselves of Gadaffi, and I think is a force for good. As much as I dislike Cameron, it is difficult to argue that his commitment to increase aid spending and exceed the gleneagles targets is extremely admirable.

And I agree with you on the front of nuclear weapons in Scotland, or anywhere to be perfectly honest. If we had it my way trident would be decommissioned and the money saved spent on the defence budget and redistributed among other gov’t departments. The arguments for it are very thin on the ground and especially in the current economic climate we can’t afford to replace it, save all the ethical and moral arguments. But I think that pressure is mounting and I would be amazed if the current government decided to replace the system, it would be politically suicidal.

I feel that I have picked up on these arguments, but the more I hear them the more I think that they’re competence is clouded by their nationalist root. I feel the independence argument would be stronger if the evidence existed that Scotland would be fundamentally better off. Until I see that, I’m afraid I feel the current situation, or one of increased devolution, is the best option.

Cheers for the feedback so far, folks. It’s a shame it’s mostly from pro-independence people, though. This wasn’t meant as some unionist-baiting exercise, I genuinely want to know why so many unionists (and I’m certainly not trying to claim all are guilty of it) seem to almost willfully misunderstand why nationalists want independence, and refuse to acknowledge there could be any reasonable case for it.

The only argument that carries any significant weight in the economic one. Everything else is political bs.

What really gets my back are half-baked arguments that most people don’t have the slightest bit of interest in.

There are comments about how Scottish history has been suppressed/lied/hidden; how we’ve all been oppressed for 300 years – difficult to justify since I can’t recall being banned from doing something the English can do (bar play for their football team). Some talk about “Freeeeedom!” – Erm, from what? If all of these were of importance, we’d have been independent years ago. Someone noted that some nationalists make out that once we are independent, everything will be ok. That’s total mince.

Very little will change for most people, although quite a few may find themselves out of work or other difficulties as a direct consequence. That will happen and the SNP have to deal with that argument.

Independence is attractive, but it has to be for the correct reasons. Diving in under the partiotism flag is doomed to failure. At present, the SNP is riding high. It has shaken the political foundations and finally forced change from the other parties. But independence is a Big Step, no matter how things are at present. The arguments for independence have to be put clearly and without all the flowery nonsense.

as a ‘pragmatic unionist’ i tend to agree with just about everything you just said, except the point about economics being the most important point.

for me it is the least important in many ways.

simply if i get to a point that i feel scottish but not british, then theres no amount of money that would make me vote to stay with the union, and vice versa.

One of the things that annoys me (and im not having a dig) is that the SNP often makes me think of a used car sales man telling me how wonderful my life would be in a free scotland. It always strikes me as the argument of someone who doesnt think they can win straight up. As if a persons identity can be bought.

And i should say before people start pounding on me that this is just how I react to much of the case as has been made.

I’ve never heard anyone opining how wonderful a “free Scotland” would be. Equipping Scotland with the tools of an independent country is what independence is about. As somebody previously said, independence is the method towards making Scotland better, not the silver bullet.

And again, what’s identity got to do with it? Why can’t people who feel British now, not feel British when Westminster ceases to have legislative responsibility for Scotland? Why do they need the Union to be the definitive lynchpin upon which to hang their dual identity? In all honesty, I find that a mildly dangerous concept.

Why can’t Scotland, Wales and NI etc share their values and histories, working together as partner independent countries as opposed to this relationship we have now. Surely that’s the point of independence. we can share all these things with our cousins in the rest of these islands. But we don’t need to share our policies with them. Or a government.

“Why canâ€™t people who feel British now, not feel British when Westminster ceases to have legislative responsibility for Scotland? Why do they need the Union to be the definitive lynchpin upon which to hang their dual identity? In all honesty, I find that a mildly dangerous concept”

thats like asking why a person couldnt be a rangers supporter if rangers didnt exist.

Its the IDEA of britain, the nation that claims my loyalty, affiliation, romantic flutterings whatever you want to call it. If you cant get that, and i very much suspect that you do, then i have no idea what you mean by nationality.

As for not hearing anyone say how wonderful an independent scotland would be, could you please refer me to the last time wee eck stood up and said that an independent scotland would suck?

Except “Britain” is not a Nation it is a geographic entity. Similarly the UK is not a Nation but a political union of two nations under Treaty with bits bolted on (NI). I’m Scottish and only Scottish, not “British”.

Well I don’t understand that point of view but then I am not a Nationalist really. Well I am, obviously, because I am in the SNP and I want Scotland to be independent.

But the idea of equating a country with a football team is just weird to me. But then the idea that people can derive an element of their identity from which football team they support is also weird to me. Perhaps I am just weird.

But none of that has anything to do with politics. Politics is essentially about who has power and on whose behalf they exercise it. In the UK power is concentrated in the south east and is largely exercised to benefit the south east. That’s not a criticism – it’s inevitable that this would happen as the south east is the main driver of the UK economy.

But from my point of view independence is desirable because it would bring power back to Scotland and that could only benefit the Scottish people irrespective of what football team they support and irrespective of whether they feel Scottish or British or indeed Irish or Pakistani or Polish.

“It always strikes me as the argument of someone who doesnt think they can win straight up.”

Funnily enough, I associate that more with the same old lines the unionists have been coming out with for years, about how DISASTROUS independence would be for Scotland. That’s playing on people’s fears, trying to scare them into remaining tied to the apron strings, like a mother who tells her child that evil people lurk outside, so he should just stay at home with her forever.

It’s dishonest, and it stinks. I’m quite fed up with it. Even if I did take your point about the SNP being like used car salesmen, I would say that’s not nearly as bad as scaremongering.

But by the same measure one could argue that the SNP’s argument is based around false hopes; that Scotland would be automatically better off under independence by all barometers. This is not a coherent argument.

The argument for staying in the union is not, as I have already said, based on playing on people’s fears. It’s far less clear cut, or black and white, than that. No-one can look into a crystal ball and predict how Scotland would be if she were independent, and therefore we cannot say that her economy would be stronger, that she would be like Norway in virtually every respect, and that she would be better off than being part of the union. All we can do is take a look at the current economic climate and judge based on the current situation how things would be. And I have to say, that with the banking system in tatters, the price of oil volatile, and reserves declining, things don’t look exactly rosy. This isn’t scare-mongering, its the hard economic reality – something apparently lost on the SNP. But if we look before the banking crisis, we had strong growth in this country, outstripping that of other major european economies, our macro-economic performance was excellent and inflation was low.

There is a certain element of unknown about independence, of course. I look upon it with optimism, seeing all Scotland’s natural assets, our established and developing industries etc, and see enormous potential for the future. You look upon it with pessimism, not looking past the current climate and deciding that everything’s ruined. Declining reserves? They’ve been saying that almost since oil was first discovered in the North Sea. Volatile oil prices? Yeah, like oil prices are going to do anything but soar upwards in the future, not to mention the fact we have so much renewable energy potential. Banking system in tatters? Well, that’s true whether we’re in the UK or not, and at least as an independent nation we would be able to regulate things according to our needs rather than London’s.

According to unionists such as yourself, there is no grass on the other side – it’s a post-apocalyptic wasteland. There’s just no reason to think Scotland would be the only country in the world with all the advantages we have and somehow manage to descend into economic ruin.

If everyone thought the way you and other unionists think, no one would take even very slight risks, and the world would effectively stop turning. You think it would be a risk becoming independent – I say it’s a guaranteed route to failure to remain in the UK.

“You look upon it with pessimism, not looking past the current climate and deciding that everythingâ€™s ruined.”

I’m sorry, but it is nigh on impossible to look beyond the current economic climate when talking about Scotland becoming independent. If Scotland were to be independent now this is the very climate that she would be thrust into. And it’s not a pretty picture. If you don’t take it from me then at least take it from someone who speaks with more authority on the subject:

And here is some more analysis from the guardian. I would possibly agree that it’s a bleak picture, but it makes some interesting points, especially on how Scotland’s economy reflects that of the UK’s as a whole, and so the gov’t’s economic policy, decided in London, is as appropriate in Scotland as it is anywhere else in the country:

Volatile oil prices? Well here’s a graph to explain the point:http://www.analyticalq.com/energy/volatility/images/oilprices.gif
You’re sort of right that the general trend is up (that would certainly be the case in the ‘what if’ scenario of there having been no financial crisis), but that doesn’t mean that there is any more oil in the north sea, nor that in general Oil is gradually going out of fashion across the world. Look at the Chinese, whilst they’re demanding more & more of the stuff, they’re ploughing money into renewables and desperately trying to reduce their dependence on imported foreign oil, as are the americans. In Sweden they’re trying to phase it out alltogether.

“Banking system in tatters? Well, thatâ€™s true whether weâ€™re in the UK or not, and at least as an independent nation we would be able to regulate things according to our needs rather than Londonâ€™s.”

What is the difference? How are Scotland’s needs with regard to the financial sector any different from “London’s?” It doesn’t matter where the policy is conjured up, everyone’s after the same thing – more growth, jobs & stability. Why would any of these things suddenly appear if Scotland were to be independent?

“According to unionists such as yourself, there is no grass on the other side â€“ itâ€™s a post-apocalyptic wasteland.”
Well according to you independence would be a guaranteed economic success. All I’m trying to say is that there are barriers in the way, it’s no rose garden out there, we have to be realistic in our economic outlook because it’s too important a thing to risk. Look at Ireland, they’re talking of a lost generation there – many are emigrating in the way they did in the past, often over here to the UK. Scotland isn’t being economically constrained as part of the UK. There is no evidence to suggest that things would be any better if she were independent – they’re just assumptions grounded in a nationalist impulse. Yes independence is romantic and an attractive proposition, but to think that it would improve everything is simply deluded.

“If everyone thought the way you and other unionists think, no one would take even very slight risks, and the world would effectively stop turning.”
But why take the risk? Has the financial crisis not shown us that un-necessary and reckless risks rarely pay off. You can take risks about some things but the future prosperity of an entire nation is not something worth risking, especially as the obstacles are there for all to see.

One final thing, here’s the most recent GDP growth charts from the Scottish Government. Read from them what you will:

That point of view is amazing. You are essentially saying that because it is an uncertain and volatile world out there we are better off not managing our own economy – it’s better to leave that responsibility with Westminster, despite Westminster’s record of not managing our economy very well.

That’s an interesting point of view because I don’t ever think from one day to the next whether I feel Scottish or British. Most days I just feel like me.

The advantage of independence for me is that it would give us better government. It wouldn’t necessarily change the way people feel but it would make the country more successful simply because we would have a government which was focussed on Scotland, not on the whole of the UK.

In UK terms Scotland’s distinctive needs and aspirations are never going to be top of the list and rightly so – the UK Government has to govern in the interests of the whole of the UK, not just part of it. With independence however Scotland’s distinctive needs and aspirations would always be top of the list. That would result in better government.

If I could give one example of the kind of thing I mean. The charges for energy producers to connect to the grid. The charging system in the UK is set up to incentivise the production of electricity as close as possible to the centres of population that use the energy. There is nothing wrong with that approach. But the effect of it disadvantages Scotland because our renewable energy resources are located mainly in the north of the country. Therefore Scottish energy producers have to pay millions to connect to the grid whereas energy producers in the south east of England are actually subsidised to connect to the grid.

In an independent Scotland that situation would never have arisen – because given the natural resources we have, and where they are located, it would have been obvious from the start that a charging system based on proximity to population centres made no sense. It would never even have been considered and Scottish energy producers would have been spared a lot of grief.

“I want the outcome of the referendum to be the result of both (or all three?) sides arguing their cases succinctly, and the public deciding which option sounds like the best way forward for the country.”

A fair post that asks questions of both sides. As someone in the undecided camp, i have been waiting for the SNP to make the case for independence in terms of the how and the why and also how this will affect relations in the future (especially with our future nearest trading partner just to the south of us). As intimated in my own post about the referendum a couple of weeks ago, the pro-independence lobby also need to answer questions about the Queen and the EU.

Conversely the Unionists have questions to answer too. Why should we stay in a country that now see’s Thatcherite economic policy enacted by whoever get’s the keys to 10 Downing Street being the biggie. Where is your Union dividend just now?

My own favourite album has a track called “Face Up” – time for both sides to do just that.

With no disrespect to Allan and others, Unionists only raise these questions because it obfuscates the issue and deliberately introduces uncertainty and confusion.

At best, its misleading and at worst, its a form of psychological bullying and manipulation. In one breath they will argue that independence has no relevance to the man on the street who cares for his family and having a job, and in the next breath, suggest that Lizzy and the EU might be taken from them and they should be very alarmed.

When people want to know what will happen about the monarchy, or the EU, or border controls in an Independent Scotland, its mainly because the Unionists have told them for decades they should be afraid of it.

There is a common theme: erode and destabilise the confidence of the electorate, and encourage dependency.

As the most republican part of the UK, if/when we become an independent country, why shouldn’t we have a complete break from the past, start afresh and have a completely democratic set up in our country. The Monarchy represents privilege and class, to symbols of the UK that is an athema to a modern Scotland.

Why should Scotland go straight into the EU, and straight into the Euro?

These should be the subjects of referendum’s, it should not be assumed that the Scottish people wish to keep the monarchy or enter the EU.

What do you mean by a confederal model? Do you mean the SNP should lay out a proposal for everything to be devolved except, say, foreign policy and defence?

That appears to be the “third way” and opinion polls suggest that this model has majority support at present.

But the problem is that the UK Government would have to agree to that and there is no guarantee that they would.

There is a guarantee that if a majority of Scots voted for independence the UK Government would accept that – but the same does not hold if a majority of Scots vote for more devolution.

Indeed if we look at some of the rhetoric coming out of the Coalition I think it’s more likely than not that they wouldn’t. Pretty much every time the SNP says we want X, Y or Z devolved the UK Government says no, we are not going to give you those powers because we don’t think you will use them properly. And they can say that because they have the power – they can choose whether to devolve it or not.

So if people are assuming that all we have to do is say please may we have powers over the benefit system, for example, and we will get that they may be in for a rude awakening. Because I would bet the house that the answer would be no, because we don’t think you would use those powers properly. And they would be supported by unionist politicians in Scotland.

So while I understand why people are attracted to a kind of independence-within-the-UK option I don’t think it would deliver the clear outcome they imagine.

Exactly. If there’s going to be a Devo Max/FFA/whatever option on the referendum, we need to have it spelled out exactly what will and won’t be devolved, and have it guaranteed, before the Scottish people can vote for it. Otherwise, we’ll have people voting for it, thinking they’re voting for Scotland to have full control of the economy while still chained to the union, and end up with something that falls very much short.

It certainly would. The question is will the unionist parties take part in a convention that actively looks at independence as a viable direction, or will they pull the same stunt they did with Calman and go “oooh, we’re going to have our OWN commission”?

Using the argument put by Aidan, Labour should be arguing for the elimination of Westminster and the transfer of all powers to Europe. After all, the combined weight of all of Europe would allow us to influence the world far more than a small nation on the edges of the continent.

Just how many would support that step could be counted on the back of a fag pack.

Independence is about one simple point, the right to be a masters in our own house without having to ask permission of others or run the risk that a larger power will overrule our decisions.

After independence, you can count me in the camp that will push for Scotland to not be in the EU but to have a similar relationship as Norway.

I’m not saying all powers should be transferred to Westminster, Brussels, Holyrood or local Councils for that matter.

Different decisions are best taken at different levels of government – I’ve argued here and elsewhere that corporation tax should be pushed up to Brussels at least in a rough band, benefits should be devolved down from Westminster to Holyrood, defence, foreign and monetary policy should remain at Westminster.

Agreed. I’m an SNP member but I do not favour continued membership of the EU. We should sign up to EFTA and EEA which gives us the Common Market we were told we were voting for in 1975. We don’t need to be involved in a political union that has no democratic legitimacy, has never had its accounts successfully audited and costs a fortune as we will be continually bailing out the stragglers who entered into a politically motivated currency union that most intelligent people knew from the start would eventually fail.

Indeed. If nationalists are expected to say what will happen with every teensy weensy little thing after independence, then I see no reason why fans of FFA/Devo max/whatever should be allowed to get away with not telling us exactly what they would leave undevolved.

What is it about the union that we NEED to cling to so tightly, and why? Foreign policy? Shared history? Really?

Actually I’d argue one of the key advantages of devolution versus independence is that devolution is a process that allows for reflection and adjustment on an ongoing basis, but independence is a one time event which must, by definition, be worked out in advance.

Erm, try visiting some of the more â€œfundamentalistâ€ nationalist blogs, and you will see how wonderful things will be!
But, everyone is entitled to their opinion, one of the advantages of living in a democracy.

I’m no more inclined to visit and/or listen to the rabid wing of the Nationalist blogosphere than I am the swivel-eyed Unionist wing of the blogosphere. That is not where the forthcoming constitutional debate will be conducted.

*rolls eyes*
â€œWhy canâ€™t people who feel British now, not feel British when Westminster ceases to have legislative responsibility for Scotland? Why do they need the Union to be the definitive lynchpin upon which to hang their dual identity? In all honesty, I find that a mildly dangerous conceptâ€
thats like asking why a person couldnt be a rangers supporter if rangers didnt exist.
Its the IDEA of britain, the nation that claims my loyalty, affiliation, romantic flutterings whatever you want to call it. If you cant get that, and i very much suspect that you do, then i have no idea what you mean by nationality.
As for not hearing anyone say how wonderful an independent scotland would be, could you please refer me to the last time wee eck stood up and said that an independent scotland would suck?

Oh, I understand the point about nationality and the difference with citizenship. Do you? The idea of Britain and Britishness was around before the Union of Parliaments. I don’t see how it follows that it requires the Union of Parliament to sustain itself. Why would independence remove that shared history and identity? You see, I view myself as a Scot and a European (in the wider sense than the EU sense). Neither of these two domains have a sort of parliamentary sovereignty. But that wouldn’t affect my chosen identity. It doesn’t weaken it and Scottish independence would really strengthen it. Neither do I need Scottish independence to legitimise my Scottish identity. Why is Britishness so special that it does require this pre-requisite?

I think there is another issue here – if devolution grows and develops, lets say we opt for devo-max or whatever that is – or gain fiscal autonomy after a fashion – it would I think, make the Union seem less important in peoples minds, not more. “If we’re doing all this by ourselves, what is the Union for?” would be the question being asked.

I can see why Ruth Davidson wants to draw a line in the sand, and even declare that for most it is a non-issue – if they lose any more control to the Scottish parliament, then Independence will come, but by the back door so to speak. Murdo Fraser I think, see’s the writing on the wall and wants to position his party to at least be contender should that day come. The other unionist parties are all in a muddle about how to best approach it.

So what to do?

Attack it too strongly, like taking the line that the Scots are not competent, then you could lose the argument almost by default. If Jim Murphy took the stand with the Tories, then he risks being around when they do something fantastically ill considered, like getting Michael Forsyth or some such rabble rouser from the 80s to be their champion.
If you defend Scotland and say of course it could go it alone: Then you risk losing again.

I do have laugh at the desperate attempts of the Unionist parties trying to force the issue. I don’t think they have gotten it into their heads that they lost the arguments and lost the election. Someone may correct me, but I don’t the losers get to dictate terms to the victors.

It is only right and proper for it wait until the end of this parliamentary session. Gives everyone time to consider all the pros and cons.
If you defend Scotland

I think the EU membership issue is going to be the biggest problem for the SNP to deal with. They want to leave one union but be part of a bigger one that has even less accountability to the voters in Scotland.

Here, the SNP have been voted in and the Tories kicked out. Westminster has to respond. But in the EU, do you honestly think anyone will be bothered which party in is government in Scotland?

Do you really believe that? I suggest you take a look at the SNP manifesto. The SNP won an election on a pledge to have certain powers devolved as part of the passage of the Scotland Bill. Westminster has said No. So there’s really no point in saying if people in Scotland vote for something they will get it. The position of the Labour Party, along with the other pro-devolution parties, is that devolution allows Scottish solutions to Scottish problems in devolved areas, not reserved areas. Your position is that we can just vote for reserved areas to become devolved and it will just happen. But you must, realistically, know that it is not as simple as that. o.

If a party won an election on the basis of campaigning for those powers they would have little choice.
The problem the SNP are having levering more into the Scotland Bill is down to tactical decisions they made â€“ not participating in the drafting process, not really campaigning on further devolution or even independence except to put it behind a referendum.

The debate on constitutional matters isn’t two dimensional – there’s the federalist option which never gets any press when a media likes things that come in neat pairs.

The question I’d ask though, is why the pro-independence side portrays people who argue with them as evil unionist oppressors who aren’t proper Scots. That is just as harmful to intelligent debate.

The last thing we need in the run up to the independence referendum is the sort of bile we had from the no campaign in the AV referendum. That was horrendous. I am fairly confident we can rise above that standard of debate.

What would really help, though, is if supporters of independence came up with some hard facts rather than just paint a romantic picture of independence that has absolutely no detail in it.

To me, living in a country where people are free to do what they want so long as it doesn’t harm others, or interfere with their liberty, a country that cares for the planet, a country where everyone has enough to eat and a watertight, warm, roof over their head, a country where everyone is educated in a way that meets their needs is more important than anything. Whether Scotland is independent or not is irrelevant to that. You could have a liberal Scotland within a union, or an illiberal independent Scotland, or the other way around. For me it’s the liberalism that makes my heart buzz, not the constitution.

I think you’ll find there are extreme views on both sides. The problem is the level of bile on the Unionist side is quite breathtaking: If they are to believed then Scotland has not advanced as a nation in almost 300 years. We’re always 24 hours away from fiscal ruin. Not one of us works or pays taxes, no revenue is generated here, no wealth created. We all live on the good graces of the English. The English pay our way, they pay for our health service, they pay for our educations, they pay our benefits, they pay for our prescription, there is no end to the generosity of the English. You are seeing this more and more often in the English press and not just the right-wing screech monkey red tops like the daily express, but in papers like the Guardian or the Independent.

To defend the Union, you are caught on the horns of dilemma. To attack independence is to question the competence of the Scots people to go it alone. Not an easy line to take, and one that will create the sort of pro-independence anger that you speak of. If they try to avoid this, then you get a sort of limp wishy washy nonsense that simply does not resonate or capture the imagination, because it is hearkening back to an ideal that does not exist any more.

What angers me, is that the pro-unionists seemingly can’t or won’t defend Scotland against these nonsensical attacks. If they agree with them, then frankly the Union has outlived its usefulness, who in their right mind could defend such a state of affairs if it was true, or if it is a lie, who in all good conscience would be a party to it? Are they perhaps afraid, that if they did stand with Scotland, they could undermine their own arguments? better to stay silent and hope the negativity sways people to our way of thinking? If that is the case, then the Union needs to end – I could not pin my colours to the same mast with these people.

I think the Unionists will do their worst and fail to make a positive case for the Union. Nothing I have seen so far, has made me think otherwise. I agree with your last statement, but sadly few Unionists do.

Comments are closed.

Now on Facebook

Signing up

We had an open signup box here, but it's apparently a spammer's delight. If you are a regular and we don't tend to delete your comments, please do drop us a tweet about registering. If you're already signed up, you can log in here. Please note: registering doesn't mean magic pixies deliver Better Nation to your bedside, it just means we don't moderate your comments any more. If you want magic pixies try adding our RSS feed. And please don't email us with commercial guest posts or linkbait. We'll just ignore those.